NFP for friend exploring the faith

[Son_of_Jonah]

I’m taking part this year in a Theology of the Body study group at the university from which I graduated this spring. ToB has been an interest of mine for some time, so I’m enjoying the opportunity to take part and help “teach” the younger college students coming through the group.

One of the members of our group, a good friend of mine for a few years now, is also a graduate, currently in his second year of med school, and he’s Methodist. Last night the subject of artificial contraception came up, and through my rather intense reading of the boards here, I was able to engage him in the dialogue. On the philosophical/theological differences between using contraception to prevent birth versus using NFP to elicit the same effect I was ok. He still struggles to accept that there is a difference because the means are artificial (and, thus, illicit) and that they therefore thwart the procreative teleology of the sex act, but where he really got hung up was on his insistence that NFP is vastly inferior at actually preventing pregnancy.

He used as an example a couple in which the wife has lupus. He says that, in 75% of cases, a woman with this disorder who gets pregnant will die, as will the child, so the use of artificial contraception should be licit in this case, especially as the chances of getting pregnant are so much lower if the ABC is used properly. I insisted that NFP, used properly is actually more effective, but he - rather heatedly - insisted that this is absolutely medically proven otherwise, that the science behind NFP is VASTLY inferior to ABC. Furthermore, he likened the use of ABC in this case to the use of antibiotics, claiming that God gave us the tools and the knowledge to use medicine in cases such as these, and that as He is the author of medical science, ABC should be licit.

What I’m asking is how I might better approach this topic. Next week the issue of NFP WILL come up again, so I’d like to be prepared to offer him statistics if possible, so if anyone knows where I can find this information, or even has practical advice of their own to give me to help approach this situation, I would be greatly appreciative. My friend is a good man, and genuinely curious about the Faith, though contraceptives are something of a sticking point, so if I can help him at all in this process I would deeply love to do so.

Thanks again.

Simon Peter

 

[interestedman]

I’m taking part this year in a Theology of the Body study group at the university from which I graduated this spring. ToB has been an interest of mine for some time, so I’m enjoying the opportunity to take part and help “teach” the younger college students coming through the group.

One of the members of our group, a good friend of mine for a few years now, is also a graduate, currently in his second year of med school, and he’s Methodist. Last night the subject of artificial contraception came up, and through my rather intense reading of the boards here, I was able to engage him in the dialogue. On the philosophical/theological differences between using contraception to prevent birth versus using NFP to elicit the same effect I was ok. He still struggles to accept that there is a difference because the means are artificial (and, thus, illicit) and that they therefore thwart the procreative teleology of the sex act, but where he really got hung up was on his insistence that NFP is vastly inferior at actually preventing pregnancy.

He used as an example a couple in which the wife has lupus. He says that, in 75% of cases, a woman with this disorder who gets pregnant will die, as will the child, so the use of artificial contraception should be licit in this case, especially as the chances of getting pregnant are so much lower if the ABC is used properly. I insisted that NFP, used properly is actually more effective, but he - rather heatedly - insisted that this is absolutely medically proven otherwise, that the science behind NFP is VASTLY inferior to ABC. Furthermore, he likened the use of ABC in this case to the use of antibiotics, claiming that God gave us the tools and the knowledge to use medicine in cases such as these, and that as He is the author of medical science, ABC should be licit.

What I’m asking is how I might better approach this topic. Next week the issue of NFP WILL come up again, so I’d like to be prepared to offer him statistics if possible, so if anyone knows where I can find this information, or even has practical advice of their own to give me to help approach this situation, I would be greatly appreciative. My friend is a good man, and genuinely curious about the Faith, though contraceptives are something of a sticking point, so if I can help him at all in this process I would deeply love to do so.

Thanks again.

Simon Peter

There is no way that NFP is as good at stopping pregnancies than an IUD. Also when it says that NFP is 99% effective or something like that, it is when it is used PROPERLY. It is a whole lot easier to use a pill or condom properly than to use a method like NFP.

The whole concept of NFP is absurd to be honest. It is like Jews that can’t work on the sabbath so they create all these odd contraptions so they can dial their phone without pushing buttons because pushing buttons is considered work. It has the same exact intended end result of birth control so why is it different?

 

[ahs]

NFP is every bit as effective, or more, compared to any birth control method. What people sometimes see is that NFP couples tend to have lots of kids (gross generalization, as this may be). What they don’t realize is that they have these kids because they either WANT them, or decided they were willing to risk pregnancy. I know of couples that are in the gravest of circumstances and have to avoid conception for…life. They use NFP and do not get pregnant. Now, this also means they do not get to enjoy the marital embrace as often as they would like.

The “science” behind NFP to avoid pregnancy is to “not have sex”. IT also entails observing the body and p(name removed by moderator)ointing the fertile window and having sex only when the body shows signs that it is not fertile (unless teh goal is to conceive…then you have sex during teh fertile window). How “contracepted sex” is more effective at preventing conception than “not having sex” is beyond me. Perhaps he is confusing NFP with the rhythm method? At any rate, he could easily google NFP + effectiveness and see that there is scientific data to support the effectiveness of NFP.

 

[ahs]

There is no way that NFP is as good at stopping pregnancies than an IUD.

I wouldn’t say the IUD stops the pregnancy, per se. Pregnancy still occurs with an IUD, but it is then aborted by the IUD. So, the IUD does stop the pregnancy, is as far as a pregancy results and is subsequently terminated.

 

[interestedman]

I wouldn’t say the IUD stops the pregnancy, per se. Pregnancy still occurs with an IUD, but it is then aborted by the IUD. So, the IUD does stop the pregnancy, is as far as a pregancy results and is subsequently terminated.

Where is the evidence for this?

 

[LJN21]

Where is the evidence for this?

Considering the fact in some IUD’s all it does is thin the uterine wall so the fertilized egg can’t implant it should be obvious.

 

[Son_of_Jonah]

There is no way that NFP is as good at stopping pregnancies than an IUD. Also when it says that NFP is 99% effective or something like that, it is when it is used PROPERLY. It is a whole lot easier to use a pill or condom properly than to use a method like NFP.

The whole concept of NFP is absurd to be honest. It is like Jews that can’t work on the sabbath so they create all these odd contraptions so they can dial their phone without pushing buttons because pushing buttons is considered work. It has the same exact intended end result of birth control so why is it different?

Forgive me, but having read enough of your opinions on this board - especially those regarding human sexuality and contraception, I’m not going to take anything you say seriously here, especially as you cannot possibly hope to offer me any sort of advice that would be helpful in this situation.

The “science” behind NFP to avoid pregnancy is to “not have sex”. IT also entails observing the body and p(name removed by moderator)ointing the fertile window and having sex only when the body shows signs that it is not fertile (unless teh goal is to conceive…then you have sex during teh fertile window). How “contracepted sex” is more effective at preventing conception than “not having sex” is beyond me. Perhaps he is confusing NFP with the rhythm method? At any rate, he could easily google NFP + effectiveness and see that there is scientific data to support the effectiveness of NFP.

We covered a few of these points exactly, and he said he understood perfectly well that larger families was proof of the correct attitude of NFP, and further that he knew full well that NFP is not the same as the rhythm method, hence why I was looking for something more specific… I think his concern is centered around his faith in medicine as a construct provided to us as humans by our creator and doesn’t seem to accept that ABCs are inherently illicit, especially in cases where the goal with NFP is, in his mind, the same.

Anyway, you said a Google search should provide me with evidence? Any sites that are, in your opinion, more reputable or helpful than others?

 

[interestedman]

Considering the fact in some IUD’s all it does is thin the uterine wall so the fertilized egg can’t implant it should be obvious.

Which IUD’s?

From the research I have done IUD’s prevent ovulation. It is possible to ovulate with an IUD, but it is very, very rare. And if it does ovulate it will make it harder for the fertilized egg to implant but many fertilized eggs don’t implant either. So although there is a chance that a fertilized egg that otherwise would have implanted if the IUD didn’t make the uterus “hostile” it is extremely rare and in no way is it the primary function.

 

[interestedman]

Forgive me, but having read enough of your opinions on this board - especially those regarding human sexuality and contraception, I’m not going to take anything you say seriously here, especially as you cannot possibly hope to offer me any sort of advice that would be helpful in this situation.

We covered a few of these points exactly, and he said he understood perfectly well that larger families was proof of the correct attitude of NFP, and further that he knew full well that NFP is not the same as the rhythm method, hence why I was looking for something more specific… I think his concern is centered around his faith in medicine as a construct provided to us as humans by our creator and doesn’t seem to accept that ABCs are inherently illicit, especially in cases where the goal with NFP is, in his mind, the same.

Anyway, you said a Google search should provide me with evidence? Any sites that are, in your opinion, more reputable or helpful than others?

Here you go:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12339804

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1755473

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17314078

 

[Ophelia23]

There is no way that NFP is as good at stopping pregnancies than an IUD. Also when it says that NFP is 99% effective or something like that, it is when it is used PROPERLY. It is a whole lot easier to use a pill or condom properly than to use a method like NFP.

The whole concept of NFP is absurd to be honest. It is like Jews that can’t work on the sabbath so they create all these odd contraptions so they can dial their phone without pushing buttons because pushing buttons is considered work. It has the same exact intended end result of birth control so why is it different?

Why is it “a whole lot easier” to use a pill or iud? Are we just animals who have no self control and are unable to abstain for a small period of time each month?

 

[LJN21]

Which IUD’s?

From the research I have done IUD’s prevent ovulation. It is possible to ovulate with an IUD, but it is very, very rare. And if it does ovulate it will make it harder for the fertilized egg to implant but many fertilized eggs don’t implant either. So although there is a chance that a fertilized egg that otherwise would have implanted if the IUD didn’t make the uterus “hostile” it is extremely rare and in no way is it the primary function.

Copper IUD’s (ParaGard) are still in use and they have no hormone at all. In the UK the term IUD’s only refers to the non hormonal copper product.

The prevention of ovulation in SOME IUD’s does not change the fact still makes the uterus hostile to life, which can cause an abortion.

 

[interestedman]

Why is it “a whole lot easier” to use a pill or iud? Are we just animals who have no self control and are unable to abstain for a small period of time each month?

I wan’t even talking about abstaining.

What is easier? Taking a pill every day or taking your temperature or tracking the mucous in your vagina and then trying to interpret it in a meaningful way? And obviously getting an IUD implanted and then having to do nothing is easiest of all.

 

[interestedman]

Copper IUD’s (ParaGard) are still in use and they have no hormone at all. In the UK the term IUD’s only refers to the non hormonal copper product.

The prevention of ovulation in SOME IUD’s does not change the fact still makes the uterus hostile to life, which can cause an abortion.

From what I have read the copper IUD’s block the sperm from the egg.

paragard.com/what-is-paragard/How-it-Works.aspx

"ParaGard® works primarily by preventing the sperm from reaching and fertilizing the egg, making it one of the most effective forms of birth control, with or without hormones. "

 

[LJN21]

From what I have read the copper IUD’s block the sperm from the egg.

paragard.com/what-is-paragard/How-it-Works.aspx

"ParaGard® works primarily by preventing the sperm from reaching and fertilizing the egg, making it one of the most effective forms of birth control, with or without hormones. "

Hormonal and copper IUDs work in different ways. With a copper IUD, a small amount of copper is released into the uterus. This type of IUD does not affect ovulation or the menstrual cycle. Copper IUDs prevent sperm from being able to go into the egg by immobilizing the sperm on the way to the fallopian tubes. **If an egg does become fertilized, implantation on the wall of the uterus is prevented because copper changes the lining of the uterus. **

emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_intrauterine_devices_iuds/page2_em.htm

 

[mtbender]

There is no way that NFP is as good at stopping pregnancies than an IUD. Also when it says that NFP is 99% effective or something like that, it is when it is used PROPERLY. It is a whole lot easier to use a pill or condom properly than to use a method like NFP.

The whole concept of NFP is absurd to be honest. It is like Jews that can’t work on the sabbath so they create all these odd contraptions so they can dial their phone without pushing buttons because pushing buttons is considered work. It has the same exact intended end result of birth control so why is it different?

Many would disagree…
nfpaware.com/2011/08/clinical-trials-iud-vs-billings-ovulation-method/

 

[mtbender]

Where is the evidence for this?

According the American Medical Association Committee on Human
Reproduction," the action of the IUDs would seem to be a simple local
phenomenon. That these devices prevent nidation of an already fertilized
ovum has been accepted as the most likely mechanism of the action."[3]
“Nidation” is another term for the implantation of the newly conceived
child in the lining of the uterus. This is the endometrium in which the
approximately one-week-old new life seeks to nest and which is the source
of nutrition for continued development.[4]

Dr. Robert Edwards, in a paper presented at the Family Planning Research
Conference at Exter, England, in 1971 said, “most scientists would now
accept that the effect (of the IUD) in most species, including man, is
exerted at implantation.”[5] In an exhaustive survey of over four hundred
articles on the subject, Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers concluded, “in the light of
current, accepted medical definitions of contraception, abortifacient,
pregnancy, conception, and abortion, the conclusion is that the primary
action of the IUD must be classed as abortifacient.”[6]

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CCLIUD.TXT

 

[ahs]

We covered a few of these points exactly, and he said he understood perfectly well that larger families was proof of the correct attitude of NFP, and further that he knew full well that NFP is not the same as the rhythm method, hence why I was looking for something more specific… I think his concern is centered around his faith in medicine as a construct provided to us as humans by our creator and doesn’t seem to accept that ABCs are inherently illicit, especially in cases where the goal with NFP is, in his mind, the same.

Anyway, you said a Google search should provide me with evidence? Any sites that are, in your opinion, more reputable or helpful than others?

Here are a couple to start with:

nfpsite.aldred.org/effect.php
nfpandmore.org/Effectiveness.shtml
ccli.org/nfp/effectiveness/compare-methods.php

Someone not very long ago posted some really great links…specific studies for each method of NFP and the effectiveness results. I’ll see if I can find it, but I don’t remember if it was in the Moral Theology or the Family Life forum. I know it was within the past couple months though, so that at least narrows down the search a bit.

Regarding the IUD’s. Both the copper and the hormone versions affect the lining of the uterus.

Copper triggers white blood cells (simulating and infection or intrusion into the body) and hormones that are inhospitible to sperm. But, this doesn’t mean that all the sperm die Pregnancy can still occur. In that case, the now irritated uterine wall with the thick and inhospitiable lining will not allow implantation of the embryo…leading to miscarriage/abortion.

The hormone IUD affects the lining in such a way that it also is inhospitible to sperm and supposedly they can die easily in the uterus before reaching the egg. However, again, not all sperm will die, and in this case, again, it also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick. This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow.

Every website I’ve check (other than the one immediately above this post) will spin IUD’s as killing the sperm or preventing conception at all. However, they also all admit that it is the uterine lining that is affected. Sperm do not rely on the uterine lining to reach their destination, per se. Even when a woman is natural infertile and the uterine lining is naturally inhospitiable, sperm can still make it to the fallopian tubes. That’s one of the ways “oops” pregnancies happen…when sex is had in the infertile period, the sperm make it upstream and sit there for a couple days waiting on the egg to be released into the fallopian tubes…so to speak.

 

[interestedman]

emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_intrauterine_devices_iuds/page2_em.htm

“If an egg does become fertilized, implantation on the wall of the uterus is prevented because copper changes the lining of the uterus.”

Yes, as I said, this CAN happen, but it is very rare. It certainly is not the primary way that these IUD’s work.

 

[interestedman]

Many would disagree…
nfpaware.com/2011/08/clinical-trials-iud-vs-billings-ovulation-method/

Do you have a link to the actual study?

 

[interestedman]

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CCLIUD.TXT

Are IUD’s now the same as they were 40 years ago, because that is when those people said those things. Richard Nixon was president when these remarks were made. America was still in Vietnam.